Free Flight, Free Speech

@Lydiot:

Nice use of the Dunning-Kruger ploy. A bit overused by people who know they are wrong in an ethical question to accuse the other side of "emotional argumentation", but nicely done. So, you proved, you are able to hide even the worst ethical failures behind intellectual games. Now, are you proud of yourself? I mean, to prove, you are accepting dead innocents for the sake of your sick world view was really bad, but now to play it as a victory as if it would be a good thing is even worse.
So, someone who accepts dead kids, innocents as collateral of his world views, tells me about how low I am ... well, if that isn't a clear case of why we look who says something, not only at what he says. Nevertheless, since I am far from the lows, you reach so effortless, Lydiot, I hang on to the rules, I defined myself for this forum ... the guys your wnat to play nice with would have banned you two or three posts ago ... but here, the 1st Amendment applies and I hang on to it (well, obviously my subscription to the freedom of speech makes me in your eyes so comparable to Hitler, right?). Now the 1st Amendment says, you can express your own opinion, it doesn't make any restrictions that your opinion has to be correct, anything, but a bag of lies or ethical. However, I take my freedom of speech to point out, that I have no high opinion of someone protecting killers and sacrificing innocents to prove how "wise" he is and I certainly have no high opinion of someone who, after others took the fire, claims, what he did for us here or why I should play nice after we achieved all what we achieved by standing our ground.
So, now play your Dunning-Kruger plays ... show us, how much you know about manipulative dishonest techniques and how little about ethics ... document for the world, what kind of person your are ... because what you write here, it will remain forever, no deletions.

J.

Freedom of speech also means freedom of not speech towards someone that is utterly silly.

Kind regards, Vincent

KL-666 wrote:Freedom of speech also means freedom of not speech towards someone that is utterly silly.

Kind regards, Vincent

Well said.

You might think I had an ulterior motive by asking about your use of "gay", but I didn't. I just couldn't figure out if you used it with the intent of it being a pejorative term or not, and when you first responded to me I honestly didn't understand what you wrote. That's all there's to it. I didn't understand your intent when you used the term, and I still don't, because you haven't explained it in a way I understood and then decided not to bother at all.

What about asking about that is "silly"?

jwocky wrote:@Lydiot:

Nice use of the Dunning-Kruger ploy. A bit overused by people who know they are wrong in an ethical question to accuse the other side of "emotional argumentation", but nicely done. So, you proved, you are able to hide even the worst ethical failures behind intellectual games. Now, are you proud of yourself? I mean, to prove, you are accepting dead innocents for the sake of your sick world view was really bad, but now to play it as a victory as if it would be a good thing is even worse.
So, someone who accepts dead kids, innocents as collateral of his world views, tells me about how low I am ... well, if that isn't a clear case of why we look who says something, not only at what he says. Nevertheless, since I am far from the lows, you reach so effortless, Lydiot, I hang on to the rules, I defined myself for this forum ... the guys your wnat to play nice with would have banned you two or three posts ago ... but here, the 1st Amendment applies and I hang on to it (well, obviously my subscription to the freedom of speech makes me in your eyes so comparable to Hitler, right?). Now the 1st Amendment says, you can express your own opinion, it doesn't make any restrictions that your opinion has to be correct, anything, but a bag of lies or ethical. However, I take my freedom of speech to point out, that I have no high opinion of someone protecting killers and sacrificing innocents to prove how "wise" he is and I certainly have no high opinion of someone who, after others took the fire, claims, what he did for us here or why I should play nice after we achieved all what we achieved by standing our ground.
So, now play your Dunning-Kruger plays ... show us, how much you know about manipulative dishonest techniques and how little about ethics ... document for the world, what kind of person your are ... because what you write here, it will remain forever, no deletions.

J.

LoL, yes, I'm fully aware of it remaining here forever. I'd reiterate Dunning-Kruger in conjunction with pointing out that your posts too will remain here forever, but because the intended message in doing so would be inherently accurate it'd also fail to resonate.

I will however reiterate what you are proposing:

Me posting my opinions on a forum about FlightGear with a total number of 65 members somehow equals "protecting killers and sacrificing innocents".

I don't think anyone with even half a brain is unable to figure out just how absurd that line of reasoning is. It's so illogical and daft even at a cursory glance that it's mind-boggling that one not only proposes it but then doubles-down on it....

Well, actually, your total postings add up to a lot about flying, some religious discussions in which you treated other members of this forum quite arrogant and believed you own all wisdom of the world and all other people are racists, gy-bashers, nutjobs or whatnot, some really stupid posts about profiling in which you proved, you like to talk about things, you don't understand even on an absolute beginner level and now your attack on me because you think, my style is too harsh (and make baseless claims while ignoring the factual evidence about the correctness of comparisons I made). So, bottom line, you posts add up to "flight simmer and nutjob" as far as I can see it and honestly, to a terrible waste of my time.

Oh come on guys, stop bickering. It's pointless.

I realize that words that can be used in decent conversation in my culture (e.g. where gays are fully integrated), may be problematic for backward cultures (e.g. where there is an oppressive fear of gays). Since all cultures are on this internet, i must avoid misunderstandings. Therefore i will keep a list of taboo words and will try to restrain myself from using them. The list now contains:

- abuse
- gay

As i can not know in advance all the problems of backward cultures, i may learn some more of these words over time.

Kind regards, Vincent

IAHM-COL wrote:

Lydiot wrote:
Let's not pretend that Jwocky is something he isn't.

I am not pretending. I know he is very intelligent man. Smart if you may.
Even Hooray recently admitted he has at least this of good reputation in the inner circle.
.

I think you'll find that was intended as a back handed slap across the face of the third face of the triangle..

Ie yours truly.

@bomber.
I hope it wasn't because Hooray spoke not only of Jwocky but also of myself. So, it could be true what you say, and his points is that both J and I are not smart. That makes some sad sense thou, because that is how they had somehow treated me: with utter disregard -- as if they think I am an imbecile.

But,
Oh well. Even such of their attitude would explain a lot. I care to find how that attitude is much more counterproductive.

it0uchpods wrote:Oh come on guys, stop bickering. It's pointless.

This type of sentiment is out of line with this boards intent, Josh.

Here we listen what others have to say (whether we allign with them or not)

I find distasteful to "shut-up" other people. And even more if you play that card to an "oponent" of the dialectic, when you have nothing better to say.

I recommend you enjoy the ride, and hold yourself on the notion of telling people to stop talking. I also recommend you get a more open attitude at others' ideas, sentiments and thought, and avoid disregarding them as "bickering"

That is exactly one of the most succesful ways of managing a conversation in both Curtis' Forum and the devel list, but it is 1) uncivilian, 2) and avoid you to actually pay the respect to the person expressing ideas, by doing some attempt at understanding them.

If you don't care for a conversation, just skip it. But consider not instructing people to back off because allegedly they are running "your patience" to thin.